In NM-2, Will Wilson be Redistricted?

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Um, if the DeLay map was not a gerrymander, why was Lloyd Doggett forced to run in this district?

[WMS]

Um, if the DeLay map was not a gerrymander, why was Lloyd Doggett forced to run in this district?

"The Texas re-redistricting was, indeed, partisan. But the prior lines were based on the Frostocity, a Democratic gerrymandering so bad it should probably go into civics textbooks as the prime example of gerrymandering in American history. So as bad as the Republican redistricting was, it likely was fairer than the previous set of districts...It could have been better of course but that would require nonpartisan redistricting."

I just covered this. I didn't say it wasn't a gerrymander.

F***, Three For Three from the Red Avatars today. Maybe someone slipped some LSD in with their weed.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

If we bend over for the Republicans, we lose. Period.

You won last year without stooping to their level, didn't you? By a decent margin as well.
And incumbency means that that majority should last at least until the next round of re-districting... by which point you'll be in a better position wi' state legislatures than you were in 2000...

Besides, gerrymandering New Mexico would just gain you a single seat. And it's not as though Wilson is a Musgrave or a Cubin...

[minionofmidas]

Anyone trying to argue that the DeLay map is better - indeed, is not a ton worse - than the court map... well, he either hasn't seen the court map or he should just go home and quietly die. This is not to say that the court map was exactly fair (although the "17-15 can't possibly be a fair division of Texas" argument doesn't hold water. Much of it is due to Texas' electoral geography. And the remainder would have ended somewhere during the decade; some of these old incumbents getting by in heavily Rep districts just would have been defeated eventually, and none would have been replaced by a Dem had they retired) - but it was much the fairest map in any major state in the US (I dislike the NY, IL or CA bipartisan gerrymanders almost as much as the Rep partisan gerrymanders of PA, OH, MI or FL, or the Dem ones of GA and NC. NJ is a special case - a blatant but not extreme Rep gerrymander agreed to by the Dems. Why they did that still beats me.)
Now... as to the DeLay map and the Frostrocity itself... both are absolutely evil. The DeLay map has/d perhaps that extra little bit of evilness thrown in by quite explicitly attempting to make it impossible to elect White Democrats that could later be strong statewide candidates. Then again... the Frostrocity was so evil that it's absurd to claim any other map is worse.

As to Georgia - I'm not really sure how fair and "nonpartisan" that new map is. The lack of good data to be found is worrying to say the least.
It's better than the old one, that's for sure.

[WMS]

Anyone trying to argue that the DeLay map is better - indeed, is not a ton worse - than the court map... well, he either hasn't seen the court map or he should just go home and quietly die. This is not to say that the court map was exactly fair (although the "17-15 can't possibly be a fair division of Texas" argument doesn't hold water. Much of it is due to Texas' electoral geography. And the remainder would have ended somewhere during the decade; some of these old incumbents getting by in heavily Rep districts just would have been defeated eventually, and none would have been replaced by a Dem had they retired) - but it was much the fairest map in any major state in the US (I dislike the NY, IL or CA bipartisan gerrymanders almost as much as the Rep partisan gerrymanders of PA, OH, MI or FL, or the Dem ones of GA and NC. NJ is a special case - a blatant but not extreme Rep gerrymander agreed to by the Dems. Why they did that still beats me.)
Now... as to the DeLay map and the Frostrocity itself... both are absolutely evil. The DeLay map has/d perhaps that extra little bit of evilness thrown in by quite explicitly attempting to make it impossible to elect White Democrats that could later be strong statewide candidates. Then again... the Frostrocity was so evil that it's absurd to claim any other map is worse.

As to Georgia - I'm not really sure how fair and "nonpartisan" that new map is. The lack of good data to be found is worrying to say the least.
It's better than the old one, that's for sure.

I was in part going off of the comments of one jimrtex, a Forumite I respect greatly in these matters. I shall try to get him to comment further on this. If he turns out to agree with you, I will admit a mistake. As I have said four frigging times now, I would have preferred to see a nonpartisan redistricting myself. And I thank you, Lewis, for not launching ad hominem attacks on me like the loon from Cali did.

Now, I will not disagree that the other big states are atrocious - nope, no disagreement at all. I am greatly amused at your comparison of the evilness of DeLay...can't we come up with a clever name for it? ...'s map and the Frostrocity. I agree about how horrid what happened in East Texas was - I actually thought those two Dems were fairly reasonable types - but this is DeLay after all. Now, I suppose we can argue about how much evilness oozed from the Frostocity into the 2002 court map...see my reference to jimrtex, above.

From everything I read about Georgia, the Reps decided to make it pretty nonpartisan for the sole reason that doing so improved their chances of getting their re-redistricting to stand up in court, while still removing the Dem gerrymandered advantage. And it worked, too.

[Sam Spade]

This is mainly just an information post for those who aren't educated on the matter.

The early 90s Frost version only jimrtex has, but you could probably find it on Polidata if you have a subscription.

But all other Texas maps can be found here (and clicking on All Redistricting Plans):

http://gis1.tlc.state.tx.us/

The 1996 court redraw was the same as the 107th Congress.

The 2002 court redraw was the same as the 108th Congress.

The 2004 legislature redraw was the same as the 109th Congress.

The 2006 court redraw is the present map (with 5 CDs changed).

I may give an opinion later; I may not.

[minionofmidas]

I was in part going off of the comments of one jimrtex, a Forumite I respect greatly in these matters. I shall try to get him to comment further on this. If he turns out to agree with you, I will admit a mistake.

While he is an expert on matters like that, and while I too respect him greatly, he is a partisan Republican on these matters and his opinions here do have to be taken with a grain of salt.
Of course parts of the frostrocity were preserved in the court map - though not the worst gerrymanders. (One element that survived were the "bacon strips"... but these got even worse under DeLay. And I'm not even sure if they originated in the Frostrocity or whether they're even older.) Also, remember that the map in place immediately before 2002 was not the full Frostrocity anymore, as parts of it had been thrown out by a court (the same court? I'm not quite sure) before, just as has now happened to DeLay's map.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Why should I?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It didn't - both targeted Democrats are still in Congress. The Dems still hold the same number of seats as before. Although I suppose that without the 2004 wave, that wouldn't be the case now.

So yeah, from a "remove that disgusting map and let's have some real elections in Georgia" perspective - your and my perspective - , it worked. But from a "remove the Dem gerrymandered advantage" partisan Republican view, it actually failed.

[WMS]

This is mainly just an information post for those who aren't educated on the matter.

The early 90s Frost version only jimrtex has, but you could probably find it on Polidata if you have a subscription.

But all other Texas maps can be found here (and clicking on All Redistricting Plans):

http://gis1.tlc.state.tx.us/

The 1996 court redraw was the same as the 107th Congress.

The 2002 court redraw was the same as the 108th Congress.

The 2004 legislature redraw was the same as the 109th Congress.

The 2006 court redraw is the present map (with 5 CDs changed).

I may give an opinion later; I may not.

Thanks for the information, and I would love to have your opinion on this.

Bah, doesn't work in Firefox.

While he is an expert on matters like that, and while I too respect him greatly, he is a partisan Republican on these matters and his opinions here do have to be taken with a grain of salt.
Of course parts of the frostrocity were preserved in the court map - though not the worst gerrymanders. (One element that survived were the "bacon strips"... but these got even worse under DeLay. And I'm not even sure if they originated in the Frostrocity or whether they're even older.) Also, remember that the map in place immediately before 2002 was not the full Frostrocity anymore, as parts of it had been thrown out by a court (the same court? I'm not quite sure) before, just as has now happened to DeLay's map.

Oh come now, he is to Be Believed No Matter What. You know that, Lewis.
Well, that's what I am awaiting multiple good opinions on - I got your good opinion on it, and you should give yourself credit for making me rethink my position - since the extent of how much Frostrocity versus how much DeLayermandering is pretty much the crux of our discussion here.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Ask jfern - he seems incapable of arguing for more than two posts before launching an attack. I knew you were better than that.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Well, what I meant by "it worked" is that they got their plan passed and enacted. I was not referring to what they hoped to accomplish in the subsequent elections. So our perspective worked.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

If we bend over for the Republicans, we lose. Period.

You won last year without stooping to their level, didn't you? By a decent margin as well.
And incumbency means that that majority should last at least until the next round of re-districting... by which point you'll be in a better position wi' state legislatures than you were in 2000...

Besides, gerrymandering New Mexico would just gain you a single seat. And it's not as though Wilson is a Musgrave or a Cubin...

She's a member of the dirty dozen anti-environmentalists, and she has Ambramoff connections. Just because she's less horrible than some other horrible people in Congress doesn't mean that she doesn't deserve to go. Tons of large states have extreme Republican gerrymanders, Florida, Ohio, Michigan, and so on. No one cares. Texas and Georgia have the added bonus of being mid-decade. No one cares. Suddenly New Mexico might get a majority D delegation now that they always have more votes for the Ds in Congress. Suddenly you guys are up in arms. Screw this double standard.

[WMS]

Suddenly New Mexico might get a majority D delegation now that they always have more votes for the Ds in Congress.

That's only because the Republicans haven't run a serious campaign in NM3 in almost a decade, thus Udall gets some insane landslide, and thus the "votes for Congress" looks lopsided, especially when you add in the fact that the Ds try harder in NM2 and thus Pearce doesn't get as big of a landslide.

Well, so much for reason. Time to await another partisan ad hominem attack.

[Sam Spade]

Yep, WMS, it ain't viewable in Firefox.  Unfortunately, you have to use old IE to get it to work properly.

I should really add that NM-03 really isn't that "safe Dem" of a seat (look at 2000 and 2004 numbers against the spread).  Dems just have a fairly strong incumbent there right now and a GOP who refuses to run anyone worth mentioning against him.

Besides, NM voters are very unpredictable, especially where WMS is.  You can't expect them to give you the results you want just because you gerrymander it to be so.  Those aren't typical hyper-GOP suburbs or hyper-Dem urban areas.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

What is so bad about this?

http://www.ncec.org/redistricting/page2/tx108.pdf

The worst parts of it (like those southern districts) were either retained or made even worse in the DeLay map.

Certainly not worse than the Ohio map no one here is whining about.

[Padfoot]

What is so bad about this?

http://www.ncec.org/redistricting/page2/tx108.pdf

The worst parts of it (like those southern districts) were either retained or made even worse in the DeLay map.

Certainly not worse than the Ohio map no one here is whining about.

I'll whine about it!  Its evil and horrible and I hate it!  I hate it so much I have redrawn it at least 5 times now as some sort of perverted anger management.  The only problem is I can't draw anything I actually like

[minionofmidas]

What is so bad about this?

http://www.ncec.org/redistricting/page2/tx108.pdf

The worst parts of it (like those southern districts) were either retained or made even worse in the DeLay map.

Certainly not worse than the Ohio map no one here is whining about.

I have whined about it in this thread.

[minionofmidas]

I've thought about it and here's what I would have gone for as a Democratic legislator in 2002, ie a map that looks decent and addresses some legitimate issues, while also tweaked somewhat to favor Dems:

(Nate's attempt, reposted for reference)




Basically a Bernalillo-Valencia district with the Indian rez.s in the far west of Bernalillo and some Republican territory towards the North of Albuquerque missing, and certainly not going into Sandoval, but with East Bernalillo County in; and the border between the two outer districts exactly where Nate put it.

[jimrtex]

Rather than going through a rash of "eye-for-an-eye" redistricting revenge I would much rather see Congress pass a law banning redistricting that doesn't occur concurrently with the Decennial Census.  Possible exceptions could be made for dramatic population shifts such as the sudden mass migration caused by Hurricane Katrina or if annual census estimates indicate that the populations of the smallest and/or largest district in a state differ from the state's average by more than 15%.

Not a bad idea. My city did something similar when a new subdivision pushed one ward to be 40% larger than the others. The public and officials agreed that a mid-decade remap made sense in that case.

The city of Houston reviews its council district boundaries biennally (for every election).  Once there is sufficient ACS data, there may be no justification for not doing so considering equal protection concerns.  Since each election is independent, there shouldn't be a concern about stability (no member is guaranteed re-election), and there is very little administrative inconvenience since whole election precincts are shifted.

A similar argument could be made with regard to congressional district boundaries.

[minionofmidas]

Rather than going through a rash of "eye-for-an-eye" redistricting revenge I would much rather see Congress pass a law banning redistricting that doesn't occur concurrently with the Decennial Census.  Possible exceptions could be made for dramatic population shifts such as the sudden mass migration caused by Hurricane Katrina or if annual census estimates indicate that the populations of the smallest and/or largest district in a state differ from the state's average by more than 15%.

Not a bad idea. My city did something similar when a new subdivision pushed one ward to be 40% larger than the others. The public and officials agreed that a mid-decade remap made sense in that case.

The city of Houston reviews its council district boundaries biennally (for every election).  Once there is sufficient ACS data, there may be no justification for not doing so considering equal protection concerns.  Since each election is independent, there shouldn't be a concern about stability (no member is guaranteed re-election), and there is very little administrative inconvenience since whole election precincts are shifted.

A similar argument could be made with regard to congressional district boundaries.

Australia does that.

[jimrtex]

The 2002 Texas lines were drawn BY A COURT. Delay's lines are a definite gerrymander.

Authority for drawing congressional district boundaries is vested under the United States Constitution in the State legislatures, subject to revision by the Congress.  Congress has chosen not exercised its authority in this area other than to require representatives to be elected from single member districts.

A federal district court is NOT a state legislature.  The federal district court got involved solely because of the failure of the 2001 legislature to redistrict, followed by the failure of the state district court to produce a legal plan.  The federal district court reluctantly drew new district boundaries, admitting that they were incompetent to making political considerations that were properly the domain of the state legislature (eg creation of a minority opportunity district in SW Houston).  They thus maintained as much as possible the architecture of the 1991 Frostrocity.

Advocates of various groups that wished the district court to impose further changes appealed the case to the US Supreme Court, which refused to hear the case.  The Texas legislature does not ordinarily meet in even years, so there was no opportunity for the legislature to either endorse or revise the boundaries drawn by the court before the 2002 election.   In addition, because of early filing deadlines, any changes would have either undone the results of the primaries are required them to be delayed (as nearly happened in 1992 when the legislature redid the legislative district boundaries in an Ann Richards-called special session).

At it's next regular session in 2003, the Texas legislature drew new boundaries, which will be used for 4 elections.

[agcatter]

The Dems gerrymandered the hell out of Texas Dems when they had control of the legislature in the 50s, 60s, 70s, 80s, and 90s.   What goes around comes around.  I'm sure Dems will return the favor in Pennsylvania when they get the chance.

Come on.  Dems were getting a 50% of the congressional seats in Texas while getting 42 or 43% of the total statewide congressional popular vote.  It's politics and both sides do it whenever they can get away with it.  Neither side is more holy on this stuff.

[jimrtex]

Um, if the DeLay map was not a gerrymander, why was Lloyd Doggett forced to run in this district?

Lloyd Doggett did not even live in District 25 in 2004.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Right, he was forced to move to that district because everywhere else in the Austin area was drawn into solidly Republican districts. That of course is a predominately Hispanic district that will be virtually impossible to be held by an Anglo Democrat once Doggett retires. If everywhere in the Austin area is in a Republican district except the Hispanic part, that's rather gerrymandered.

Not to mention that district itself is a gerrymandered atrocity.

[jimrtex]

Anyone trying to argue that the DeLay map is better - indeed, is not a ton worse - than the court map... well, he either hasn't seen the court map or he should just go home and quietly die.

The court plan splits one Houston city council district among 6 congressional districts.  There is no identity for District 25.  It preserved the claw of Republican voters dropping down into Brazoria County.  It kept Atascosita and Clear Lake in District 9, and split Clear Lake between two districts.

It kept the split of Kaufman County so that Tyler could be linked through Rockwall to Sherman, while connecting north and east Dallas to areas between Houston and Dallas.

It deliberately avoided pairing incumbents.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

When one party has 59% of the popular vote it does.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

When you split Midland County among 3 districts, you effectively keep a local candidate from running.   But when the court removed most of the county splits, the incumbent is still there.  

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Chris Bell wasn't a strong statewide candidate.  Lloyd Doggett ran for Congress because he couldn't get re-elected statewide.  Stenholm was interested in running for statewide office.  Ralph Hall was too old.

[jimrtex]

This is mainly just an information post for those who aren't educated on the matter.

The early 90s Frost version only jimrtex has, but you could probably find it on Polidata if you have a subscription.

The shp files can be displayed with various applications, including some freebies.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

When one party has 59% of the popular vote it does.

Wow, what a stupid argument. Bush got 59% because IT WAS HIS HOME STATE.  It was the Republicans own damn fault if they couldn't defeat Democrats like Charles Stenholm who won in a 72.2% Bush district. Wow, your argument blows.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

So I'm sure they support redistricting in Michigan and Pennsylvania? Majority of seats Republican, Kerry won the state. Oh, and let's not forget how disproportionate things are in Ohio and Florida.